The quest for a league average offense - Why has our 1B production been so bad?
by GiantFan on Oct 22, 2009 8:00 AM PDT
Email
PrintFirstly, I'd like to apologize for the amount of fanposts I've made recently, a quiet couple of weeks with work and the end of the season have meant I've come up with a few ideas. This post nicely links to the one below which discusses the topic of our favourite Giants 1B.
If i were to ask the question "Which position have we got the worst offensive production from (relative to position) over the last 10 years?" I'm sure the majority would say 1B. So this topic is nothing groundbreaking, I'm merely going to investigate whether that's indeed true and the reasons behind it.
Has our 1B production been that bad?
The easiest way to answer this question is to look at the sOPS+ of each position per year. It basically takes the park adjusted OPS and adjusts for the position (so an sOPS+ of 100 is the league average for the position you're looking at in that year). I've taken the numbers from baseball reference and worked out the average for each position over the last ten years. The results are as follows:
- LF: sOPS+ = 150
- 2B: sOPS+ = 111
- C: sOPS+ = 101
- SS: sOPS+ = 98
- RF: sOPS+ = 94
- CF: sOPS+ = 93
- 3B: sOPS+ = 90
- 1B: sOPS+ = 81
Overall that works out to be an OPS+ of 102 so we've been slightly above average offensively over the last 10 years (obviously due to an above average first half and below average second half of the decade). On the whole there's not a huge amount of surprise in those numbers. Our LF production was always going to be top due to the fact we had Bonds for a number of years, although it does illustrate just how good Bonds was. The fact that 2B was our next best position again isn't very surprising considering it includes some great years from Kent and some solid ones from Durham.
Clearly by far the worst production came from 1B which is in-line with my expectations at least. To illustrate that point further we've only had one season (2004) in the last 10 years in which our 1B production has been average or above. After the jump I'll illustrate the pretty obvious reason why our production has been so poor from 1B.
Why has our 1B production been so bad?
Because we haven't used any resources on the position. I'm afraid that's an incredibly obvious answer and nothing that you didn't know already and so sorry if you were expecting a deep and meaningful conclusion. The reality is though, that that's the main reason and perhaps more interesting is the illustration of how little resources we've used on the position. What do we mean by resources though? Well, there are three main avenues for bringing talent into an organization. One of those is the trade market, although usually that is a swap of talent rather than an influx, and trades haven't really affected our 1B production a lot over the last ten years. I'm going to study the two other forms of bringing talent into an organization, by drafting and by spending money (often free agency but not limited to it).
The Draft
In order to look how we've used our draft resources I've looked back over the last 10 years and seen how we used our draft picks per position.
- OF: 17 picks in top 10 rounds, 10 picks in top 4 rounds, 2 picks in first round (including supplemental). Obviously OF covers three positions and so we've had far more OF picks.
- SS: 7 picks in top 10 rounds, 3 picks in top 4 rounds, 2 picks in first round
- C: 6 picks in top 10 rounds, 4 picks in top 4 rounds, 2 picks in first round
- 3B: 5 picks in top 10 rounds, 4 picks in top 4 rounds, 1 pick in first round
- 1B: 4 picks in top 10 rounds, 1 pick in top 4 rounds, 0 picks in first round
- 2B: 4 picks in top 10 rounds, 0 picks in top 4 rounds, 0 picks in first round
Now this is by no means an exhaustive study, there's a lot of difference in the value of picks and often picks end up moving position but it does help illustrate that we haven't used many draft resources on 1B (or big hitters on the whole) We've only used 1 pick in the top 4 rounds over the last 10 years and that was Lance Niekro (a 2nd round pick). The only position where we've used as little draft resources on has been 2B, although that's somewhat understandable given our great production from 2B in the majors and the fact that a lot of 2B start life as SS.
Money
I've mentioned one way of bringing talent into the organization, now I'm going to look at the other way, using money to gain and keep talent. I've had a look over the last ten years and calculated how much we've spent on average per position. Now these calculations are only rough, I've ignored the cost of league minimum players, the figures may not be perfect (due to bonuses, deferred payments, etc) and I've tried to distribute money fairly when players have played multiple postions.
- LF: $14.15M per season
- 2B: $6.16M per season
- RF: $5.59M per season
- CF: $4.87M per season
- SS: $4.71M per season
- 3B: $3.97M per season
- 1B: $3.44M per season
- C: $3.01M per season
Now again, there's no great surprises with some of those numbers, we've spent a lot of money on LF due to Bonds, etc. I was surprised that 1B didn't come bottom as i was expecting it too, but then i forgot just how much we spent on JT Snow (works out to $1.85M per year on 1B over the last 6 years). It's clear though that we've spent very little money on 1B.
Conclusions
Comparing the production and cost lists you get the expected result that you get what you pay for (or conversely you pay for what you get) as the ordering is very similar (aside from the positioning of C). If you try and work out value for money then it depends on what replacement level you choose to set, but either way, the numbers are pretty consistent with the best value for money from C and the worst value for money from 1B.
The draft list is different in that it produces a delayed result but it doesn't bode particularly well for our production of home-grown 1B in the next few year, especially given the Villalona situation. It's no surprise that we've got such poor offensive production out of 1B given the lack of resources we've devoted to the position and the only way we'll end up breaking the cycle is if we commit resources to that position, either via the draft, via free agency or by trade.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
101 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cool post. I’d like to point out that Lance Niekro was actually drafted as a 3B, so it’s even worse than that.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
The team seems to look at 1b as a defense first position.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 22, 2009 8:18 AM PDT reply actions
True, and their seeming obsession with it is rather strange. Partially because 1B is a bit less important defensively and partially due to the fact that they’ve not minded poor defense out of some other positions. I’m sure if i did the analysis on total value instead (including defense) that I’d find pretty much the same thing (at least in terms of 1B)
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
Firstly, I’d like to apologize for the amount of fanposts I’ve made recently
I don’t think anyone’s gonna complain about high quality fanposts. Keep up the good work.
I have one note – I think this analysis is going to underrate JT’s production a decent amount. JT was always lacking in the power department for a 1B, but he had some pretty good OBP years. I think OPS is going to undervalue some of his contribution on offense because of how it doesn’t weight OBP strong enough in relation to SLG. I don’t know what the league average wOBA for 1B was over this time period (don’t want to put the effort into it that you did!), but I do know aside from 2004, JT also had two other seasons where he put up wOBA’s of .354 and .358, which is pretty respectable.
You’re right that OPS+ will undervalue Snow as he was a high OBP hitter. It’d be better to use wOBA but i don’t know the league average wOBA per position. That’s something that would be useful to know generally but i haven’t managed to find that information (and don’t fancy calculating it myself).
Those are perfectly respectable, The wOBA leader-boards for 1B in 2000 and suggest that Snow was quite low in 2000 and around the mid-point in 2003. I’d imagine that the OPS+ numbers are a little unfair but it’s probably not a major effect.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
Yeah, JT wasn’t such great shakes offensively; he was certainly decent, but compared other 1B nothing special. The defense was spectacular, so it’s a little unfair to judge him just on offense, but on the other hand, Dan Ortmeier, Ryan Klesko, and Lance Niekro, so…yay JT!
all measurements of his RANGE
show JT to have been an astoundingly average 1B.
Range is still the most important aspect of 1B defense. Obviously, having good hands and scooping is important, but it has neve been shown (to my satisfaction) that 1Bs differ enough in this area to have it approach fielding grounders in importance.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
Hasn’t the research done on scooping so far suggested the difference between the very worst and very best at this skill will only be something like 5 runs?
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
WORST MAJOR LEAGUE STARTER THAT MANAGED TO START FOR 10 YEARS
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
I can recycle some old graphs! Yay!
sOPS+ (’09 numbers only until July but they are probably pretty close to the final results) for the past 10 years by position.
Infielders
lol first base
Outfielders
OMG LF WAS AWESOME
LOL XANTHAN LOVES GRAPHS BECAUSE HE IS A COMPUTER LOL
I’m surprised that Alfonzo was almost a league average 3B his first couple years here. I would not have expected that.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
SO TRUE
I’ll add that it’s total production (starters + bench players) for each sOPS+.
For example, in 2004 the league average NL 3B had an OPS of .797. The Giants got 544 PA’s of .751 OPS production from Alfonzo, slightly below average. But, Pedro Feliz chipped in an additional 174 PA’s of .833 OPS production from third base to help even things out closer to average. Overall, Giants 3B had an OPS of .778 that year.
help me, tommy joseph. you’re my only hope.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
Remember when it was Ishikawa?
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Sabean just goe turn Moore (KC) into your new Dave Littlefield and get Kila Ka’aihue for a bucket of balls and some sunflower seeds.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 22, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
In a way, that’s true, but I’m still trying to work out why they drafted him. He made sense to pick as high as he was if you thought he could stick at C. Not so much if he’s a 1B; his bat is awesome, for a catcher.
Oh, I don’t know — sounds like he has all kinds of potential as a hitter. He’s unlikely to realize it, just as he’s unlikely to stay at catcher, but that’s not bad for a second round pick.
Hopefully he doesn’t go all Skipworth on us.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
After reading this fanpost, you've convinced me....
CAIN FOR GAMEL
GITTURNDUNN SABEAN
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
Look at some of the names for free agent first basemen next year…
Carlos Pena, Derrek Lee, David Ortiz (really a DH), Paul Konerko, Lance Berkman
Panda 4 Prez
Are you saying you think Garko/Ishikawa are better than everyone in that group but Derrek Lee…?
(If so I suggest you do a little more research)
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions
no way
but when considering what it would take to obtain pena, the fact that ortiz is fat, slow, can’t play defense, and play’s at fenway, paul konerko probably will cost too much, and berkman has said he doesn’t want to play for the giants, it’s not worth it. considering the fact that derrek could be worth his price tag, i would take him. plus, garko can be a good hitter with everyday playing time
I would take Pena, Lee and Berkman, so long as Sabean doesn’t drastically overpay them (both dollars and years).
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
Don’t think Berkman would come here though.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I don’t think so either, but it would be a welcomed addition.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
Nice post, but there’s a problem: you seem to be basing this on the assumption that, in order to get better production from 1B, we either had to draft more 1B or spend more money, and that’s simply not true (though it’s probably what Sabean wantz us to think) – there are guys out there who cost nothing and would have been be as good as any 1B we’ve had in quite a few years. Russell Branyan, Josh Phelps, and Matt Stairs (and I’m sure that there are many more, it took me 40 seconds to find these three), for example, have all signed for the MLB minimum at some point over the past 5 years, and have all clearly hit better than any Giants 1B during that same time period.
Spending more money on 1B isn’t going to help – that money has to come from some other position. Moving production from one position to another is not an improvement. The trick is to spend money on some positions, while getting reasonable production from others for cheap. Branyan was released in the beginning of 2006, after he had posted a 114 OPS+ in 2003-2005. We could have easily just signed him then to 3 years/$3M, and we wouldn’t be in this mess – we’d still have money to spend on other positions, and we’d have a decent 1B.
And that’s Sabean’s true failure – not his reluctance to spend a lot of money on a good 1B, but rather his inability to spend little money on a decent 1B.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
It’s interesting that the best 1B acquisition he’s made (Snow) was really a dumpster dive for a player who nobody really wanted, who’d had two terrible years out of the previous three and only one even decent season in his career. Sabean’s prior connection to/knowledge of him enticed him to take a flyer on JT and it turned into a decent buy low maneuver. But he’s never really repeated that.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Well I don’t know how fair it is to hold those guys that cost nothing and do well against Sabean – for every one you can name I’m sure there are a lot more that failed. Like Josh Phelps when Sabean signed him. Money in general will help and can explain a lot of the poor production, though obviously I think we agree that the truth is Sabean is to blame in general – whether he was spending money or not we were most likely to get less value out of 1B than we should have while spending a given amount of money.
by Missing Barry on Oct 22, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think you can say the Phelps signing failed. He was signed as a minor league free agent, and it was pretty much clear from the beginning that he won’t even make the 25-man roster, let alone be our starting 1B. He did get injured in the end, but that’s not really relevant – he wasn’t going to be our 1B.
Obviously any move can fail, but I’m not talking about prospects – I’m not even talking about guys like Cust who were hanging around AAA before someone realized they can be in the majors – these are players who had a proven MLB track record of hitting the ball better than most players. There’s no way that there are “a lot more that failed” – saying that is basically saying that a solid hitter is more likely to become a bad one than he is to continue being a solid hitter, and that doesn’t make sense. And even if it did, then it would be an argument against signing any player, ever, not just these ones.
And, of course, I forgot the best example out there – Carlos Pena. Nobody expected the great year he had in 2007, and even the two good years he’s had since were better than you’d expect from his track record, but still – he had a career 110 OPS+ when the Rays signed him for the MLB minimum in 2007. The highest OPS+ we’ve gotten from a 1B over the past 5 years is 92! From Klesko!
I don’t see what’s not fair about criticizing Sabean for not signing players who, at the time, were clearly better than what we had.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
It’s interesting that you mention how Carlos Pena had a proven track record before he signed with Tampa Bay in 2007. Prior to that year he put up the following performances at 1B:
2006: 33 AB in majors
2005: sOPS+ = 76, WAR = 0.6
2004: sOPS+ = 99, WAR = 1.8
2003: sOPS+ = 86, WAR = 0.4
2002: sOPS+ = 85, WAR = 0.3
2001: 62 AB in majors.
He had a decent year in 2004 where he was a slightly under-average 1B but every other year he’d been pretty poor. That’s why he was available for so little, because teams weren’t really interested in signing him as he hadn’t produced in previous years. It’s interesting that you mention Klesko, as he was a similar bargain basement signing at the same time. He’d obviously performed better than Pena in the preceding years (although obviously he was older) and as a Giant he was worth more than Pena was in any of those years (aside from 2004)
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
First of all, using WAR for a guy who was almost never a full-time player is misleading.
Second, I would like to see the math you used to conclude that Klesko “as Giant was worth more than Pena was in any of those years,” seeing that Klesko had an OPS+ of 92 with us, while Pena never had a season under 108. Maybe you confused OPS+ with sOPS+? Or, if you’re using WAR, I will again point out that Pena wasn’t a regular, and that Klesko had a fluky high UZR rating in his year with us.
Saying that Klesko had “obviously performed better than Pena in the preceding years,” is, again, misleading. He was great at his prime, but in his last year with the Padres he had an OPS+ of 110 – identical to Pena’s. So even if the 36 y-o had managed to return to the shape he was in two years before – which wasn’t likely since he had been declining for years, and had just spent an entire year on the DL – even then, that would only result 110 OPS+ – the same figure that the 28 y-o Pena had already proven the he can put up. I don’t hate the Klesko signing, though – he was still less terrible than the rest.
Now, moving away from Kleso – I didn’t say Pena had a proven track record of being a good 1B. I said he had a proven track record of “hitting the ball better than most players” – being an above average hitter, which he obviously was, as evident by his career 110 OPS+. Non of the 1B the Giants had in the past 5 years was an above average hitter – as evident by the fact that the only who came kinda close to a 100 OPS+ was Klesko – the rest were simply bad hitters. Not bad hitters for 1B, just bad hitters.
Therefore, even if Pena had never enjoyed his break through in 2007, he would still clearly be better than any Giants 1B from 2005 to 2009. Much better, as a matter of fact. And the same applies to Branyan, Phelps, Stairs (though he’s pretty onld), and probably some others I don’t know about. Again, I’m not talking about finding good players for free, I’m talking about finding decent ones. From 2005 to 2009, all of these players were decent. From 2005 to 2009, non of the Giants 1B were decent.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
It can be misleading you’re right, although Pena was actually mostly a full time player in those 4 years. I was using WAR as Klesko had a WAR of 0.9 in 2007 which is more than the WAR of Pena in all but one of his seasons. With regards to playing time, Klesko had less than Pena aside from 2005. Klesko might have been aided by an unsustainable UZR you’re right, although i do remember him being good defensively that year. Even if you remove the defensive contribution, he still had a similar value to Pena.
You’re right that Klesko’s previous years aren’t relevant i was just mentioning it in passing that’s why i didn’t bother using the numbers.
I know you didn’t but a career OPS+ of 110 isn’t particularly good (for a 1B) and especially if it comes from a poor defensive player (which Pena was to that point) You’re right that we’ve had some even worse hitters at 1B, which is inexcusable.
You say that all of those players were decent, but I’ve evidenced below that they weren’t really (unless 1/2 win players are decent) and they weren’t really more valuable than some of the Giants 1B over the period. The main difference is that you’ve listed better hitting examples that are poor defenders whereas Sabean has gone for poor hitting choices who are good defenders. If we’d chosen those players instead chances are it wouldn’t have really made much difference.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
Of course a 110 OPS+ isn’t good for a 1B. I never said it was good. In fact, I mentioned a few times that they weren’t good players. I just said they were better than what we had.
In 2006 we were contending, and desperately needed a 1B. We could have signed Pena, then 28 y-o, who had just been released. We could have traded Matheney’s cup for Phelps, then 28, who was mashing in AAA after having been demoted. Instead we actually traded Accardo (then a very promising bullpen arm) for Hillenbrand (then 30 y-o, 99 career OPS+). And we had to pay $2M (we did get Chulk though, so..there’s that). He was older than Pena, a worse player, cost more money, and cost us a good prospect. Inexcusable.
That’s what I’m talking about. Sabean apparently never wants to spend money on a 1B. That’s weird, but whatever. But, for someone who only wants cheap 1B, he’s really bad at finding cheap 1B. All he had to do was sign a below average but not terrible 1B like Pena, and plug him at 1B for as long as we want. That wouldn’t be a good 1B situation – if you refuse to pay for a position, obviously it’s likely to be your weakest – but it wouldn’t be awful, it would allow us to concentrate on other positions, and it would spare us the horrors that were Hillenbrand and Bowker.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
I’m not going to defend the Hillenbrand trade because we obviously gave up a prospect and money for him but I’m not sure you can come to the conclusion that Hillenbrand was a worse player than Pena at the time of the trade. Hillenbrand had outperformed him in both the previous two years (both in terms of WAR pro-rated for playing time and in terms of wOBA) and also outperformed him that year (OPS of 764 (821 at time of trade) compared to Pena with an MLE of 697 that year) Hilllenbrand also had way outperformed Phelps as well (who’d put up a wOBA of .325 and .322 the previous two seasons so was hardly a viable candidate)
Again, you’re right he could have plugged in Pena (or one of your other suggestions) for a few years but all he’d have got was 0.5 win production at a cheap price which isn’t too different to the production we have been getting. I still don’t understand what difference it would have made if we’d chosen those players instead as their production wasn’t particularly good or all that different to what we obtained.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
I simply don’t agree that the production would have been the same. I understand that you want to include defense, but in this case, it hurts more than it helps. For the vast majority of the 1B out there, including all the ones we mentioned except for possibly Ishikawa, defense means little. By including single-season UZR’s, you’re just skewing the results, because many of our crappy 1B (Klesko, Ishikawa, Hillenbrand, Sweeney, and probably some more) had fluky high UZR ratings in the one season they were with us. If you really insist on including 1B defense, you’ll need to look at career numbers instead, but that probably won’t do much either, since the vast majority of the players we’ve mentioned have career UZR around 0. As far as I can tell, the only exception is Sweeney, and he really doesn’t have a career UZR at 1B, since he’s only played a season worth’s of games at the position.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
Well, we’re not talking about 5 years of complete production at a position so we’re dealing with larger sample sizes than a single season UZR. Also Aurilia has been some of that defensive value too which is unsurprising given his history.
Anyway, if we ignore 1B for a minute we still get the conclusion that the 1B you mention aren’t very good. They probably were better than the Giants counterparts but they’re still only ~0.5 WAR players and so they wouldn’t have been a huge improvement. And they certainly aren’t evidence against the theory that you’re not going to get good production out of dumspter dives like those.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
OK, seriously, how many times do I have to acknowledge that you can’t good production without paying anything? I’m not talking good, I’m talking better.
Regarding you WAR numbers: Pena’s 2003-2005 gives you 1.3 WAR per full season (and he still had a chance to have a break through). Phelps’ career numbers are similar, and that’s with a crazy low UZR – he’s around 1.5 WAR if you assume he’s an averagish 1B, which he probably is. These aren’t good numbers, but there better than what we were putting out there a lot of the time, and it’s definitely worth the MLB minimum we would have payed them.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
I think we disagree on how “proven” these guys are. I see them as cheapies teams took a flier on in case it worked out. You hear about the success stories, but most times there’s a reason they’re so cheap – because they don’t work out. Now, a good GM should be able to hit a lot more often than a bad GM (Sabean), so I’m not trying to excuse Sabean or anything, I’m just saying that I’m not going to hold him to a standard where I expect him to go out and get 3 WAR from a guy who costs $2M.
Basically, as GiantFan pointed out, Pena didn’t have much of a proven track record. I wouldn’t say Branyan did, either. He was 33 years old, he hadn’t gotten 200 PA’s in a season since 2006 (where he posted a 113 OPS+, which looks good for the Giants but really isn’t impressive for a 1B, and he wa already 30 at that time).
Basically, I brought up Phelps for a reason – I see them as comparable, guys teams took a flier on just in case it worked out. Pena got a minor league contract with the Rays. Branyan got an MLB contract this year, but you only have to go back to last year to find the Brewers gave him a minor league contract. They weren’t expected to do much, either. As for Matt Stairs….well frankly, he’s a DH, he can’t play in the NL (and he’s only really had two productive years by WAR as far back as Fangraphs goes, and he still wasn’t even an average starter either of those years).
Basically, yes, Sabean has failed at adequately filling 1B. Not finding a diamond in the rough to fill it and give us good value while costing nothing, though, isn’t something I’m going to hold against him.
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 7:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I think we disagree on how "proven" these guys are. I see them as cheapies teams took a flier on in case it worked out. You hear about the success stories, but most times there’s a reason they’re so cheap – because they don’t work out.
I don’t see what’s the disagreement here – do you agree that they proved they are above average MLB hitters (NOT for 1B, just above average)? That’s all I said. They were above average. We had guys ranging from below average to terrible. Above average is better than below average, and is much better than terrible.
I’m just saying that I’m not going to hold him to a standard where I expect him to go out and get 3 WAR from a guy who costs $2M.
Strawman. Never said that.
Basically, as GiantFan pointed out, Pena didn’t have much of a proven track record.
He had a proven track record of being an above average hitter, of putting up a 110 OPS+. That’s all I said. I don’t see what’s to disagree here.
I wouldn’t say Branyan did, either. He was 33 years old, he hadn’t gotten 200 PA’s in a season since 2006
I don’t see how this is relevant. in 2006-2008, in 628 PA’s, he had an OPS+ of 114. His numbers before that were similar. How is that not proving that you’re an above average hitter?
I am not criticizing Sabean for not predicting that Pena or Branyan were going to improve. I’m criticizing him for not realizing that what they already had done – what they proved they can do – was better than anything we had.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
The basic point of my argument is these guys were on the wrong side of their prime, and hadn’t put up the hitting numbers you’re looking at in any sort of meaningful sample in years. The whole post makes a lot more sense with that point.
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 7:46 AM PDT up reply actions
200 PA’s + 200 PA’s + 200 PA’s = a meaningful sample. 600 PA’s spread over 3 years are still 600 PA’s.
And Phelps has been available for free since he was 26 y-o. Pena was released when he was 27. I wouldn’t call that the wrong side of their prime.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
True, I was thinking more of Branyan with that comment.
I’m not exactly sure how all of Phelps career has gone down. He spent part of his 26 year old year on his original team, Toronto, then ended up on Cleveland. He only posted a 92 OPS+ that year. So the first year he was available seems to me like it was when he was 27, and he posted a 100 OPS+ that season. He didn’t even play in MLB when he was 28, and then finally had a breakout year (only after moving to his second team of the 2007 season) when he was 29. There seems to be a lot there to suggest he wasn’t an upgrade for our team over that period (or at least there was no way of knowing if he would be)….
Pena did have more evidence that he was probably better than our options – he was at least still in his prime, and even though he basically didn’t play MLB in 2006, he was above average each year from 2003-2005 (in a good amount of PA’s each year).
The point is other than Pena, there was a lot to suggest Phelps wasn’t a good move, there wasn’t very strong evidence to suggest Branyan was a good move, Stairs’ isn’t an NL player (and isn’t that good to begin with)…
This goes back to my comment you took as a strawman argument. My thinking with that comment is – what kind of production were you actually expecting us to acquire with by taking fliers on these guys? Assuming we spend $2M…your whole argument is that they were better than what we had, but if their expected contribution is only ~.5 WAR….well, then the problem comes back to how much money we’re putting into the position.
So maybe we should have taken a flier on Pena, you’ve made a case he was at least worthwhile, but I still don’t see any reason to think the others were any different from whatever other failed flier pickups were out there…
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t know, because I don’t know which failed flier pickups you’re thinking about.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
Josh Phelps!
Honestly, I can’t name any failed pickups because Sabean hasn’t tried, so we don’t really have any experiences of our own, and the ones for all the other teams….well, they failed. I’ve never heard of any of them, you know? I am sure there are Willy Mo Pena type 1B’s out there, though.
Hell, the Hillenbrand trade sucked, but at the time of the trade he was just coming off a couple years of slightly above average production, so that’s kind of similar I guess. What about someone like Erubiel Durazo? I guess he looks like he was still under team control for Oakland, but he was a good hitter all the way until 2005 and then was bad in 2006 and never played in MLB again. Someone probably gave him a chance at some point and it clearly didn’t work out.
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Hillenbrand was above average? Nah. His numbers were pretty similar to Pena’s, probably slightly worse. And we actually gave up a good prospect for him, so he doesn’t really count as a cheap pickup.
Anyway, if all we’re doing is naming decentish players who became bad, then, well, we could do that with anything. Sometimes good players top being good. Sometimes bad players stop being bad. That’s obvious. But, in general, we expect players to perform about as well as they have in the past, as long as they’re not terribly young or old, suffering from injuries, etc. I don’t see why this case (“this case” being cheap 1B) is any different.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
Well, when I called Hillenbrand above average his OPS+ was over 100 for the couple years before we got him (though not far above 100).
Anyways, with your examples, I’m really making the point that I just don’t think we had information, at the time a decision to pick them up would be made, to tell us they were any better than what we ended up wtih. Maybe Pena was, like I said you could be right about them, but looking over guys like Branyan and Phelps, I just don’t think they had a strong case at the time that they provided more than what we had. 200 PA’s from 3 years ago doesn’t equal 200 PA’s from the previous season, and a lot of their career production had been pretty far in the past. I don’t know that we could estimate their talent level to be at their career production. So that’s kind of what I’ve been trying to get at with my other posts that go into the specifics more.
Really I think the best way to answer this is by asking “what did the projections say about them at the time they were signed?” If the projections, which certainly know more about career trends and how regressing past production properly and such than me thought they were perform well, then it’s a valid point to hold against Sabean. I guess I just don’t think their projections would be that good (but obviously I don’t know this to be true).
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Is ops+ postion, league or overall based?
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 23, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Looks like the only adjustment used is for ball parks, no position
I R 5
by say hey nation on Oct 23, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Luckily, we can check (good idea, by the way).
2006 ZIPS (as in, the ZIPS released before the 2006 season):
Russell Branyan: .251/.347/.499, 6.0 RC/27 (so 3 years ago).
Carlos Pena: .254/.352/.448, 5.5 RC/27
Josh Phelps: .249/.317/.467, 5.0 RC/27.
Shea Hillenbrand: .287/.334/.435, 5.2 RC/27.
Branyan solid even for a 1B, Pena seems decent, Hillenbrand and Phelps below average. Man, what a crappy trade. Didn’t do too much damage, but still.
2007 ZIPS:
Russell Branyan: .244/.340/.454, 5.5 RC/27.
Carlos Pena: .256/.355/.474, 6.0 RC/27.
Josh Phelps: .279/.338/.486, 5.8 RC/27.
Ryan Klesko: .261/.364/.411, 5.4 RC/27.
Branyan took a bit of a hit but still decent, Pena and Phelps now look solid, Klesko is decentish. It should be noted, though, that Klesko was injured for all of 2006 and the projection probably doesn’t adjust for that (I don’t see how it could).
2008 ZIPS:
Russell Branyan: .220/.335/.424, 4.9 RC/27.
Josh Phelps: .292/.352/.483, 6.2 RC/27.
John Bowker: .254/.301/.365, 3.6 RC/27 (heh).
Pena was already off the table (his 2008 projection was awesome, obviously). Phelps continues to improve and now kinda looks like a MLB 1B. Branyan’s poor 2008 and relatively old age cause his projection to drop to well below average, though he still beats the crap out of Bowker.
Man, that was a weird move. I mean, we weren’t even contending, so what was the rush to bring up Bowker (and make him change positions)? Is there something I’m forgetting? Though, now that I think about, bringing up Burriss was even weirder. Add Bocock, the Rowand signing, and not trading Molina and Winn at the deadline, and 2008 is looking like one of the worst years Sabean has ever had. Meh…Anyway:
2009 ZIPS:
Russell Branyan: .230/.326/.452, 105 OPS+ (they dropped RC in 2009).
Josh Phelps: .273/.339/.457, 106 OPS+.
Travis Ishikawa: .242/.300/.431, 89 OPS+.
Ryan Garko: .267/.347/.419, 101 OPS+.
Phelps’ projection comes back earth, and Branyan’s continues to decline, but both are still better than what we put up there (the difference between Ishikawa and Garko is smaller when you include defense, but I don’t think it’s plausible that Ishikawa’s defense could make up for 17 points of OPS+).
I guess this one isn’t so bad, since we were kinda sorta rebuilding – I definitely wasn’t calling for signing Phelps or Branyan over Ishikawa (I did want Abreu at 1B, though. That would have been awesome). BUT, if we were rebuilding, how, for the love of fuck, did we not trade Molina? Did you guys know the Mets offered us Joe Niese for him, and we declined? And it also would have saved us $6M! Ah, but it would have left us without a catcher…If only we could have traded a poor RP for a decent catcher like Ronny Paulino… OH WAIT
But I digress.
……………………………….
So, I definitely think we can say that, throughout the last few years, these three were consistently looking better than the guys we we’re signing (at least according to ZIPS – PECOTA costs money, and I have no idea where to find old CHONES, so this will have to do).
The true miss is Pena, since he was not only looking better than what we had in 2006-2007, but there was also that 1 in 20 chance that he manages to live up to his potential. Plus, we’d still have Accardo (or even better, maybe we’d have traded him for a hitting prospect).
Branyan’s projections weren’t as optimistic as I thought, I admit, but still – better than what we had. Same with Phelps. And signing one of them instead of Garko would have also meant keeping Barnes, which is definitely a bonus.
So yeah, it’s not like it’s the worst thing Sabean’s ever done, but it still bugs me. I just wish that it felt like he had a plan. Instead, it seems like every year he’s surprised that we have no 1B, and then ends up panicking and doing something stupid.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
by Cookyman on Oct 23, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Long post is long.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
by Cookyman on Oct 23, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It does make that Hillenbrand trade look worse and worse. Thanks for the work, definitely interesting stuff. I think what we can conclusively say now is that none of the above mentioned names are .300 hitters or 3-time All-Stars, and therefore not worthy of being on the offensive juggernaught known as the Giants….
Overall, looks like it wasn’t the worst thing ever not to go after them, but a smart GM would have at least kicked their tires. Sabean, however, fails to execute any semblance of a long term plan…so we’re left with crap stopgap solutions partway through the season because we panic and don’t know what to do.
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions
To me I see the conditions around the Hillenbrand trade and the conditions around the Fred Sanchez trade and I see a lot of similarities. Those similarities are not good.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
I agree, though Sanchez is obviously a better player than Hillenbrand.
Here’s the thing about Sanchez – even if he hadn’t gotten injured, and had matched his career numbers, our total 2B production (Sanchez + Burriss) still wouldn’t have been better than what we could have gotten from a year of Frandsen.
Keeping this simple: Sanchez ‘s career OPS is .751. Burriss OPSed .560 with us. That evens out to a .655 OPS. This might be unfair to Sabean, since it’s all in hindsight, so let’s up Burriss’s OPS to .620, which is similar to what ZIPS, PECOTA, BRISBEE, and many of the McCoven were expecting. Now their combined OPS is .685.
I think we can all agree that Frandsen should have been able to post a .260/.315/.370 line if he had been given a chance, no? That would have been just as good as what we could have reasonably expected from our 2B combo, and significantly better than what we actually got**. And, again, it would have saved money, and we’d get to keep that Alderson guy, which would be pretty sweet, even with the declining fastball.
**.236/.281/.329. That maybe would have been an acceptable line if it had come from a backup catcher in 1968, providing that he had no more than three limbs and used a 7-iron for a bat. Maybe.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
LOL at the 236/ 281/ 329 disclaimer. It lightened my entire mood on this dismal topic.
One difference I see between the two trades is I think the Sanchez move tied the clubs hands more at a time they could actually gotten a longer term MI answer in Hardy. I cannot think of a SS or 2nd baseman that was out there to be gotten in the last half of the ’07 year first few months of ‘08 that would have filled either of those still glaring needs as well as Hardy could.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
That's all well and true
But a year of Sanchez would be better than a year of Franny.
Why do San Francisco teams insist on having terrible offenses? Frank Gore and Pablo Sandoval can't do it all.
And to play devil’s advocate to your devil’s advocate…
We are not talking Fransden at the same age vs Sanchez seasons at the same age here. We are either talking 2008-09 seasons or what we can expect in 2010-2011 seasons from them.
In the first case it might be worth remembering Sanchez is just 1 year away from posting 292wOBA (292 OBP, 371 SLG) in ’08. That is really not much production to recommend paying $5MM for.
If we are talking what production Sanchez & Frandsen are likely to do in 2010-11. Sanchez missed most of the most important months of a season after posting that 292wOBA so what exactly makes him a better bet than Frandsen (or any other fringe 2nd baseman stuck between AAA & the MLB)?
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 26, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Not to mention we would have found out in the process if Frandsen was worth being in the long term plans. How do we still not know if guys like Frandsen, Schierholtz, Lewis, Bowker, etc. are in the long term plans when we’ve been going through a “youth movement” the last 3 years? Shouldn’t a youth movement involve playing the young guys…?
by Missing Barry on Oct 25, 2009 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This, so hard.
It is not like the veterans in the corresponding positions have not had bad years in this time span.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 26, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Jon Niese??!!!!!!
Whoa…..
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
Bowker was brought up to patch up a banged up outfield and hit a bunch of homeruns in short period. Because Rich Aurilia was our primary first baseman, they tried sticking Bowker there.
This makes me think of the Jose Vizcaino at 1B incident, for some reason.
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
I’m really late, but are you serious? Was Vizcaino really our 1B at some point? If that’s true, then I completely blacked it out, and that is as bad as anything Sabean has ever done.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
He played 10 games at 1B in 05.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | New Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
it was a dark time
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
Obvious time
There was an obvious time for the Giants to sign Russell Branyan.
Four winters ago Brian Sabean said the Giants needed more OBP, making us hope he had finally gotten out of the dark ages. He responded with two moves for backup players.
First was Mark Sweeney, who didn’t go on to have a very good season but was at least a good concept, having a career OBP of about .350 at the time.
Second was a real head-scratcher, Jose Vizcaino. Jose had a career OBP below .320 and hadn’t quite reached .300 the previous season. Jose performed so well that he was released before the end of the season.
Meanwhile, Pedro Feliz played 160 games at third base that season, taking nary a day off until the season was more than halfway over. Why didn’t the Giants give him any rest? Because his backup was Vizcaino.
Sitting out there inexpensive and for all to see (even Sabean) was Branyan, who I believe signed for all of $500,000 — or half what the Giants paid Vizcaino. Did Russell look like an everyday player? No. Did he look like a wonderul complement to Feliz? Only if one had eyes and a brain.
Now, had the Giants signed Branyan (as their Braille should have told them to do), would they still have held his contract last season when the Mariners finally gave him a chance to play every day? Hard to say.
But I would have taken my chances. Who knows, perhaps he might even have beaten out Lance Niekro and Sweeney in 2006 and actually taken over the initial hassock.
As the original poster pointed out, these guys are out there. Usually they are guys who don’t hit for much average, strike out a lot and don’t have good gloves. What they do have is power and an ability to reach base.
What have the Giants been lacking since Barry Bonds left? Power and the ability to reach base.
The Giants finished 11th in the league in batting average last season. That wasn’t particularly good, but it was near the middle of the pack. If the Giants had finished 11th in OBP and SLG, they likely would have made the playoffs. Instead, they finished 16th and 14th respectively, leading to a 16th (last)-place finish in OPS.
Sabean keeps talking about on-base percentage. But his actions don’t get to first base.
I don’t really agree with that, although obviously Sabean could have done better than he did at getting 1B production (as i alluded to). The problem is that cheap signings are cheap for a reason, an whilst there are some that have performed well (which it’s easy to cherry pick), there’s many others that haven’t. On a single season basis that’s ok, but it isn’t a long term option as you aren’t going to succeed on signing the right bargain basement pickup every year.
If you’re spending less that $2M a year on 1B you’re going to get bad production no matter how good a GM you are.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
If you’re spending less that $2M a year on 1B you’re going to get bad production no matter how good a GM you are.
Except I just listed 4 1B who signed for less than that and provided decentish production. I’m not cherry picking – it’s not like these guys sucked, signed for nothing, and then became good – they were all clearly better than what we had at the time they signed.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
Lets discuss each of your four suggestions and see how much they’ve been worth:
Pena(Before signing): Averaged 0.775 WAR per year over previous 5 seasons
Phelps: Averaged 0.325 WAR per year over previous 5 seasons
Stairs: Averaged 0.6 WAR per year over previous 5 seasons
Branyan(Before signing last year): Averaged 0.95 WAR per year over previous 5 seasons
So in fact they’ve all had very little value which is why they’ve been available on cheap contracts. In fact they’re pretty similar to the numbers put up by some of our cheap 1B such as Ishikawa (0.8 WAR in 2009), Aurilia (0.6 WAR in 2008), Klesko (0.9 WAR in 2007), Snow (0.4 WAR in 2006).
So whilst i agree that he should have done better with the cheap pickups he’s made, there was no reason to think the ones you’ve suggested would be much better. If you rummage in the garbage long enough you’ll find the odd gem but for the most part you’ll just find garbage
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
I will again point that using WAR for players who were never regulars is terribly misleading.
I don’t even the why we should use WAR, which just mixes things up with positional adjustments we don’t need.
From 2006 to 2008 (before signing with Seattle), Branyan had an OPS+ of 114.
From 2004 to 2006 (before signing with the Rays), Pena had an OPS+ 112.
From 2005 to 2008 (didn’t play in 2006), Phelps had an OPS+ of 112 (only 400 PA’s, but his career OPS+ is 110).
From 2005-2009, not a single Giants 1B had an OPS+ over 92.
The difference is huge. You mentioned defense, but there’s no amount of 1B defense that could even come close to making up for that. And really, the only 1B we had who was truly elite defensively was Ishikawa (Snow had poor range).
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
We use WAR because it doesn’t ignore defense. Over the time period we’re looking at Giants 1B have been worth 37 runs above average which is a huge difference that you just can’t ignore. That’s worth 0.7 wins a year which when you’re talking about sub 1 win players is a big difference. And it’s not just the Giants 1B either, you’ve listed players that on the whole have been poor defensively or had to DH.
You’re right that using WAR for players who aren’t regulars can be misleading. Although as I’ve mentioned both Pena and Stairs were regulars (so it doesn’t apply to them). Phelps was too for a period and if you adjust for playing time in the other years it doesn’t make much difference. The only example you’re used that is unfairly treated due to lack of playing time is Branyan. It’s worth noting as well though that using OPS+ for part time players can also be misleading as they can be used in situations favourable to their skill-set.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
Just wait for Nicky Johnson.
Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.
by cain1rstballothof on Oct 22, 2009 7:43 PM PDT reply actions
The Giants development strategy seems to be to wait until a minor league player proves he can’t manage a more skilled position and then try to convert him if he has power potential. They probably just wait too long to make their move and the challenge of an unfamiliar position does the kids’ heads in just when they are being challenged by pitching for the first time.
Adding a 1Bman who has enough impact to make a big difference takes bigger money than the Giants have seemed to want to spend. Part of that is salary committed elsewhere, of course. Part of it might be bad timing with no salary money available to sign a second-tier guy when one becomes available in the free agent market. So the choice may just come down to a third-rate bat and a bad glove or a fourth-rate bath and a good glove; you might well be tempted to take the latter since defense is more predictable than offense and is almost always cheaper.
Fred Lewis can stand under my umbrella.
31 May 2007, 21:38 EST - the last time Matteh's career W-L wasn't below .500
We are at war with Los Angeles. We have always been at war with Los Angeles.
Lowering the Quality of Internet Discourse Since 1985™
Agree
with Cookyman that the Giants have (1) not signed and deployed cheap-and-available just-released/AAAA mashers, (2) overvalued the importance of flashy glovework at first base.
I also think that Sabean overvalues batting average. He was able to get away with/hide this analytical weakness for a while, because #25 happened to also hit a ton of homers and walk a ton. But, maybe it’s always been there, otherwise. And this weakness has not been as glaring at other positions, where batting average comprises a larger percentage of offensive value, as it has been at first base, the traditional big-dude-who-can’t-run-fast-but-can-hit-homers-and-take-walks position.
Carlos Delgado...
The Giants should sign Carlos Delgado to a 1 year deal. He is old, but he would be cheap, and before this season he had never hit under 24 homers in 13 straight years! He also has a career OBP of .383.
If he screws up…oh well, it’s a 1 year deal and we still have Ishikawa and/or Garko to back him up, but if he performs as he has in the past, the Giants (and me) look like genius’s
Panda 4 Prez
Geniuses.
Genii is apparently an accepted variant.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 27, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions
There’s no period, so maybe he didn’t have a chance to finish his sentence. He could be talking about a genius’s something!
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | New Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
Doesn’t our having Garko and Ishikawa currently make it less risky to go after injury-prone players like Nick Johnson or Delgado?
If they don’t play for 1-2 months, we just stick GarBowKawa in there.
Or is that train of thought just silly?
You wish you were named Frederick Deshaun...
Not entirely silly, but you may end up paying a premium to watch one of those guys rehab for much of the season. Also you have to keep in mind the 40-man roster and player options remaining.
Fred Lewis can stand under my umbrella.
31 May 2007, 21:38 EST - the last time Matteh's career W-L wasn't below .500
We are at war with Los Angeles. We have always been at war with Los Angeles.
Lowering the Quality of Internet Discourse Since 1985™
by S.F. Giangst on Oct 27, 2009 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions
If we get Delgado or Johnson, Garko will be gone for sure.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
Not Necessarily
Garko hits righthanded while these two (and Ishikawa too) hit lefthanded. Garko can play other positions (leftfield and catcher) while these two (and Ishikawa too) can not.
by giantsrainman on Oct 28, 2009 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
